| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the crux of the problem is that the Zairean armed forces have repeatedly and systematically attacked the Banyamulenge, in league with elements within the refugee camps which the international community has failed to disarm? Would it be a good idea now to address the problem of the prevalence of weapons among the Hutus in the camps and the flow of weapons into the eastern Zaire region, which the United Nations was supposed to be having a look at some months ago?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the UN and the UNHCR in
particular have been seeking to take action against the flow of weapons into the region. But weapons do not simply go over the border from one of the countries in East Africa into Zaire. There are many ways in which those weapons reach the Interahamwe, who indeed have been aided and abetted on many occasions by Zairean forces who are not under the full control of Kinshasa. Zaire is a huge country. It is quite clear from my own experience and discussions that it is exceedingly difficult for Zaire at its centre, Kinshasa, to have any control over what is going on in eastern Zaire. All these matters are being worked on by the UN envoy, the EU envoy and the presidents in the region. There is at least one good piece of news: the regional ministers are meeting today in Kampala to discuss the crisis and regional heads of state will meet in Nairobi next Tuesday to see what other progress can be made together with the help from the UN and the EU.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give us a progress report on the difficult task of detaining and bringing before Judge Goldstone's tribunal those who were guilty of instigating the genocidal activities in Rwanda in 1994? Is she aware of the information that some of the leaders of the Interahamwe are being given shelter in a Commonwealth country, namely, the Cameroon Republic? That is a fact that I believe she will be able to check quite soon.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I shall certainly check on the last piece of information that the noble Lord gave. So far as concerns the progress report on bringing to book the perpetrators of the genocide, I know that progress is being made. It is not so fast as one would like because it is exceedingly difficult to gather the information. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord with some greater detail than I can give him from memory at this moment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the lesson of the whole Great Lakes story so far has been that, by failing to take effective action in time, the expense has proved exorbitant? Is it not therefore now essential to gear up the international community to timely intervention before this conflict spreads into the worst chapter of an appalling story as conflict overtakes the region as a whole?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that I have every sympathy with taking preventive action where one can do so. But it is not enough for the neighbouring countries or the donor countries to take that action. It is only when the perpetrators of genocide and the mass killings that have taken place are prepared to work for peace and stop the killing that long-term success can be achieved. My officials are in daily contact with people on the ground. While there are large groups of people who want the ceasefire and an end to the killing, so long as the leaders of the groups are not stopped from the killing, however much help we give from outside--and my goodness, we have given it--the killing will not cease.
Two years ago at the height of the genocide in Rwanda I coined the phrase that people seemed to be "mad with killing fever". It is a kind of killing fever that sadly goes on in Zaire probably to a far greater extent than any of us have hitherto realised. We shall go on trying but we cannot do it without the governments and the people of those countries as well deciding to stop the killings.
Nuclear Weapons
3.18 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they agree with the Opinion of the International Court of Justice that "in view of the unique characteristics of nuclear weapons, their destructive capacity and capacity to cause untold human suffering and damage for generations to come, their use in fact seems scarcely reconcilable with respect for the law applicable in armed conflict ... the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law", and if so whether they will move a Motion to that effect in the United Nations.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we consider that the Opinion, taken as a whole, does not give rise to any new factors affecting the fundamentals of UK and NATO defence policies. Nuclear deterrence continues to be important in maintaining peace and stability in Europe.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Government are failing to move with a general feeling around the world that the time has come to be active in putting an end to the nuclear weapon? I am sure she is fully aware not only of the Opinion referred to in the Question but also of the Canberra Report on which we had some discussion. Is she aware that this country seems to be in the lead of immobility in this matter? Is it not time that we gave expression to the general feeling in the House that this is an opportunity that we ought to take to get rid of the nuclear weapon?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is a nonsense to say that this country is in the lead of immobility. Let us examine what the issue is about. We have consistently argued that it is not suitable for judicial determination. As some noble Lords will know, it cannot be considered in isolation from the circumstances of any individual case. It was the court which emphasised that the Opinion should be read as a whole. There is no way that one can debate the details of that Opinion in a Starred Question. It is a long and complex document which needs to be looked at as a whole. We retain our deterrence at a minimum level consistent with our assessment of security requirements. We continue to believe that that is the way we should go and that the process of building new relationships with Russia and other central and eastern European
countries will be helped by maintaining the stability in Europe which comes from maintaining NATO's strategy of war prevention.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that rendering the use of nuclear weapons illegal would have no effect whatever on a power which wished to use them? Dictators do not look at the law to see how they should exploit a situation; they look at their interests. Hitler was not concerned with the legality of mustard gas. He was concerned with the fact that the allies had mustard gas as well, and it was not used.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Elton is absolutely right. When people try to say that there is an ICJ prescription outlawing the use of nuclear weapons, they are certainly wrong. A large majority--11 to three--found that in international law there is no comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or of the use of nuclear weapons as such. That is the basis of my response to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in responding to what seems to be the latest phase in the campaign for nuclear disarmament, will the Government bear in mind that the United Nations Special Commission charged with destroying the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of Iraq recently reported to the Security Council that it is being systematically and consistently deceived by the Iraqis? The International Atomic Agency, also charged with the destruction of Iraq's nuclear potential, reports that Iraq is still receiving nuclear and missile equipment from abroad and that,
- "the know how and expertise acquired could provide an adequate basis for reconstituting a nuclear weapons programme".
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, puts the position far better than I. As I mentioned on Monday in my contribution to the debate on the gracious Speech, there is deep concern about what is going on in Iraq. We now know that we must be aware that other countries are still not prepared to lay down weapons. The UK deterrent is not growing. Our deterrent has always been set at the minimum level necessary to secure our safety against current risks. As the noble Lord knows, we have already eliminated our maritime surface tactical nuclear capability and withdrawn our nuclear artillery advance missiles. We are moving in the right direction but it would be wrong to give up the deterrence we must have and which all members of NATO agree upon 100 per cent.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can the Minister advise the House who or what threatens this country and is deterred by our possession of nuclear weapons?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, Iraq.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend explain whether the Opinion referred to in the Question truly reflects a majority opinion? If it was not unanimous, to what degree was there dissent? Also, what was the substance of the dissent? In other words, is that view of the court a majority decision? If so, is it fairly reflected in the excerpt given?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page